Local police departments ignore our State's Legislature.
Write a letter to the administration of the Waterbury Police Department demanding
compliance with the law. Also send letter to Waterbury Mayor, Attorney General and
the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners.
Write and publish Press Release on this issue with Waterbury to keep the public
and media in the loop.
The BFPE lectures Waterbury PD on their practices:
Waterbury responds to Connecticut Carry's demand to stop denying permit applications
for refusal to supply unlawful additional requirements. Their response is that they
have educated their officers to no longer do this. They go on to indicate that they
will still ignore the law and perform overbearing investigations without cause after
the permit application is submitted.
The Waterbury Police Department has retreated to a new line in the sand. One that
is also indefensible. Connecticut Carry will investigate how the Waterbury Police
Department implements this policy and take actions as necessary from there.
Take note of the Waterbury Police Department's use of the word 'defendant'. Clearly,
they have taken a position that someone who applies for a permit is guilty of something
and is defending themselves. The Waterbury Police Department needs to change their
assumptions of guilt when dealing with law abiding citizens.
On April 12th, 2012 the
Board of Firearms
invited both Connecticut Carry and the Waterbury Police
Department to sit down in front of the
for a discussion of our letter to Waterbury. Connecticut Carry President
Rich Burgess appeared on behalf of Connecticut Carry. The Waterbury Police Department
was in attendance with two officers and their legal advisor.
The board made it very clear
that, like Connecticut Carry indicated,
they had once once before ruled on this along with the Attorney General. They made
clear to Waterbury that they understood the issue in front of them and that they
also could clearly see that Waterbury was simply skirting the law and the
Waterbury's legal advisor continually pointed to a ruling by Judge Dyer in Farmington
v. Board of Firearms Permit Examiners that says:
Farmington maintains that this condition is a tool which aids police in their statutorily
mandated (General Statutes § 29-29) investigation of an applicant's suitability
to carry firearms.
This is the same assertion that they made in the
to Connecticut Carry. Waterbury PD completely ignores the cause necessary
to perform such an inquiry and instead insists that they will make blanket requests
during every investigation. The board warned them that if people refuse, they may
appeal to the
where Waterbury would need to answer as to the cause of letters being
Waterbury also stated that this was "no longer a requirement" which is false. An
investigation by Connecticut Carry on the morning of April 12th, 2012 resulted in
a recorded conversation with a member of the Waterbury Police Department where the
person in the records department indicated that the letters were "required". She
indicated that if the letters were not supplied that Waterbury would be unable to
perform their background check. This is not true, ridiculous and it means the letters
of reference are, in fact, still being required.
The minutes of the meeting:
New Business: A discussion was held including the Board Members,
Waterbury Town Attorney Gary S. Roosa, Sgt. Michael Dethlefsen, Waterbury Police
Department, Mr. Richard Burgess, President Connecticut Carry, Inc. and E. Jonathan
Hardy, founder of CT Pistol Permit Issues. The discussion was initiated by a letter
sent by Mr. Burgess stating that Waterbury Police Department, as part of the application
for a pistol permit, required additional information not described in the Board
of Firearms Permit Examiners Declaratory Ruling adopted on January 14, 2010. Attorney
Roosa defended the Waterbury Police Department stating the additional requirements
were only part of the background investigation. Mr. Burgess and Mr. Hardy spoke
that they had received complaints from citizens that the additional requirements
were part of the process when they first applied for the permit. Mr. Burgess and
Mr. Hardy both agreed that the many citizens were intimidated from going forward
with the application. The Board ruled that the only documents, as described in the
2010 Declaratory Ruling, must be part of the application process.
Connecticut Carry plans to give Waterbury a chance to resolve this issue and then
re-investigate the issue and see if the necessary changes have been made.
The Waterbury Police Department has been put on notice to change their process.
The citizens of Connecticut have been put on notice to refuse any blanket requests
for letters of reference and
Board of Firearms
if a denial is issued.
Connecticut Carry would like to extend deep and heartfelt appreciation to the Board
of Firearms Examiners for spending their personal, volunteered time to help clarify
their ruling and explain the conditions of such to a resistant and misinformed police
department. The Board of Firearms Permit Examiners did a great job reasoning against
an unreasonable opinion and they are a true asset to this state.